Flip side of the coin really. In any case the orthodox theological view is that the punishment is not getting the reward (ie hell means being outside the presence of God).
Disbelieving in God's existence does not mandate that an atheist must disbelieve in an afterlife.
Of course there is no logical inconsistency in believing in an after life without believing in any gods. As a matter of fact though an overwhelmingly large majority of atheists don't believe in an afterlife. This is not a terribly substantive criticism. You might also have observed that atheists are not bound to reach this moral conclusion, but then my post was about what an atheist "can" and a christian "cannot appreciate" (which words appear in a sentence preceding the one you chose to decontextualise).
Your contention re Christian vs Atheist appreciation of the gravity of murder needs re-examination.
Where I write 'atheist' read 'an atheist who doesn't belive in an afterlife'. Where I write 'christian' read 'a christian who does believe in an afterlife.' Fixed.
[I]t is my contention that a Christian cannot appreciate the true gravity of murder in the way an atheist can.
That's very wrong if that Christian believes that there is a place/situation/state called Hell.
I doubt that should raise too much concern on the part of the religionist. It doesn't fall to us after all to second guess God's judgment, indeed in ridding the world from vile sinners we might even think of ourselves as doing God's work (which attitude would not be unprecedented). The ethical atheist lacks any similar method of eluding responsibility. So again, I think, that despite any misgivings a particular Christian may have in dispatching a sinner to Hell, their understanding of the gravity of murder cannot approach that of an atheist who has thought through the implications of prematurely ending a human consciousness.
Whereas many atheists believe once you die, that's it - nonexistence.
Arguably being outside the presence of God would be indistinguishable from nonexistence.
Therefore, if it is a choice between letting a christian live vs a nonchristian live, logic has it that the christian is expendable. Lots of christians can't accept it when I tell them stuff like if it were a choice between killing a robber/soldier or letting the robber/soldier kill your child, logic has it you should not kill the robber/soldier (unless perhaps in the case where you know he is a Christian?;) ).
Well I admire the logical consistency of your position.;)
A Christian is someone who follows Jesus. When Jesus came, he said christians are to love one another, turn the other cheek etc. He most certainly didn't say go around killing people. So if christians go around killing (even Christians), they're not doing a good job of following Jesus. It might even be they're not actually genuine followers.
Absolutely. But this is kind of my point. For a Christian the non-killing comes from uncritically following Jesus, or from uncritically obeying I-am's injunction "Thou shalt not kill." For an atheist such as myself conforming with Jesus' teaching comes from ethical and historical reflection and an understanding that (most of) the system of morality he (and similar teachers such as Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, etc) taught is the only proven system to lead to a just, free and humane society.
Eternity is a very long time to be "not good enough". Maybe some people are good enough to enjoy Eternity without help from God. I don't think I am.
I don't disagree that it would be nice if there were a human-loving God(dess) who could grant us eternal joy. Indeed, I hope you find your paradise.
It does touch on a point I've wondered about: religion seems to be the foundation of much of our societal moral code. Without the framework of religion, why is it "wrong" to kill someone?
Reminds me of thing Nietzsche wrote about the madman in the market place, "now that we've killed God, which way is up or down?" This is known as the question of 'grounding' and is the subject of much debate in the study of ethics.
Religion does provide one ground. It is perhaps most effective because it relies on blind obedience and discourages thinking. "What is wrong with murder... easy... God says don't do it." But other grounds, more suitable to thinking creatures do exist. Kant's categorical imperative, for example, "Want to live in a world where every person tries kill every other? No? Then don't kill."
Putting aside the question of grounding, it is my contention that a Christian cannot appreciate the true gravity of murder in the way an atheist can. Christians have convinced themselves in the existence of an afterlife. For them killing a human is merely removing them from this world (the less important world). An atheist on the other hand realises that killing a human being is the snuffing out of an individual and unique consciousness for all time. A consciousness which longs for existence, just as much as our own does. It is this moral consideration which stops the atheist killing. Theists instead act only in obedience to their God motivated by ultimate personal reward. You might go even further and state that whereas atheists can truly be moral creatures, theists can't.
Let me start by stressing that in illustrating to you the fallacy of the GreatMan view of History (which enjoyed some historiographical credibility in the wake of Napoleon, but went out of serious History with gas lights), I do not mean to argue for an idealist notion of historical motion. Instead I think of History in terms of the reciprocal relationship between complex material conditions and ideology. Nor am I trying to write human actors out of History, that would be a position even more ridiculous than the view I'm refuting. It is people who are subject to material conditions, people who create and are swayed by ideas, and people who ultimately make history
No, you're missing the point.
Yup, I did. When you wrote"[i]f Hitler had died anywhere in his early
years" this could have been taken a) literally (eg. at age 3), b) in the
early years after his takeover of the NSDAP, c) in his early years in power.
In the context of the question, was National Socialism ever going to end
any other way than it did, I took c) to be the most natural reading. You
meant a) or b). Sorry.
While I've already conceded that Hitler is a good, if isolated, example of
an individual will as the motive force of History (the GreatMan view), the
problem of giving undue attention his personal psychology (and indeed his
personal culpability) is that you miss the material conditions (inter
alia the German economy and political system), which gave him the
opportunity to prosper. It also fails to explain why governments of similar
complexion (which for convenience we call 'fascist') rose to power across a
swathe of Europe from Spain to Hungary at this time, and at no other.
... before some point when a movement gains too much momentum and power, the people who started it are the only thing that keep the thing going. Not ideas. People. Leaders.
You are not seriously suggesting that if Emily Pankhurst had died at the
turn of the C20th women would still not have the vote?!
Forget for a moment the aberrations of communism and fascism and
consider that great historical change which practically defines modernity, the
emergence of the liberal-democratic state, indeed of the idea of the
liberal-democratic state (ie. electoral representative democracy with a market based economy). Do you really want to write the Montesquies and Tom Paines out of History? Who was the leader responsible? Washington? Danton? Robespierre? The numerous liberal lawyers who headed the 1848 revolutions? No! This was an idea whose time had come, and try as the old powers might, the assassination of individual leaders, was not going to halt it. It could be stalled, as Metternich so cusccessfully did, but ultimately the idea would survive him and his ilk, and come to fruition.
The ideas for communism were out of the bag long before 1917....
The "originators" of which were dead, but do go on.
... A revolution was bound to happen due to the conditions and the regime in the country...
Be very careful here, you are verging on writing something sensible;)
... I like to blame it all on Nikolai II's insensitivity, stubbornness and insufficient leadership skills...
LOL Of course you do! Admit it, you saw the danger of what you were writing
and inserted that to avoid contradicting yourself. Cute. You don't really
believe that if any other Romanov had been Czar the outcome would have been
different, do you?
... but without Lenin who's to say how different the outcome would have been?
Indeed, who is? Would the Soviet Union have been significantly different
with Bukharin as leader? Who's to say? What we can say is that it was
Lenin's idea, that Marx was wrong, and that rather
than Communism emerging in the world's most advanced economies (Marx had favoured the USA and the UK as being able to ach
The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas.
If ideas pose no danger to them, why would they want to do that.
Ideas within this context are anti-dangers
Dangers are dangerous to particular subjects. What is dangerous to liberal democracy (eg. the control of the state by the church) might not be dangerous to a theocracy and vv. The only sense I can make of your "anti-dangers" is that they are dangers to things you happen not to agree with.
Note that for the sake of generalisation and simplification we'll assume a moral absolutism.
Which particular absolute morality are we assuming, the koranic one? Sorry, assumption declined. If you do this you end up with ridiculous constructs such as anti-dangers.
Ideas can be dangerous and the same idea can be dangerous to different people at different times. Take the idea of Nationalism was originally a liberation ideology. It propsed that rather than the marriage arrangements of various aristocrats determining which political unit an individual belonged to, we should instead look to the nation, as defined by a shared culture and/or language. This idea, together with the idea that people should be able to choose the people who governed them proved to be very dangerous to the crowned heads of Europe, just ask Louis. Later nationalism revealed itself as a chauvanistic ideology, dangerous to people who lived near borders, to ethnic minorities and, when expressed as war, to just about everyone.
You speak of dangerous people as if independent of dangerous ideas, but take the dangerous ideas out of the heads of these dangerous people and what are you left with?
Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why people and not ideas are dangerous.
Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all. Really the examples of dictatorial regimes that survive the death of their founder is so great as to make your statments ridiculous.
Goodness wasn't the GreatMan view of history abandoned sometime in the C19th? Must ususally an historical opportunity presents itself and someone (and it could have been any number of someones) fills the place. I will conceed that in the case of Hitler we are perhaps dealing with a leader sui generis since, unlike Mussolini for instance, he did not remain a simple puppet to the interests that allowed him power. Mussolini, however, is far more typical. Facially a "great leader," in reality a captive spokesperson.
NS Germany was never going to end any otherway simply due to the bellicose nature of the regime. Had it not been so warlike, the regime would have eventually ended in economic disaster. Not because it was a state-owned economy, it wasn't, but because the regime had undermined the intellectual infrastructure of the country. You cannot continue to place party hacks into all the educational, administrative and judicial positions based merely on ideological adherence without regard to ability and hope to survive long term.
There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.
If ideas and speech really are this impotent, then is freedom of speech or conscience such a big deal? Tell you what the next time someone brings up some egregious example of censorship, I won't get upset anymore, I'll just relax, take a leaf out of your book and tell myself, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter, after all ideas can't do much can they?"
I have yet to see anyone ask Cheney or Palin if they feel they are above the law. Their actions seem to indicate they do.
Palin's position on this is, ahem, 'nuanced.' She appears to believe that the excutive is not entirely above the law, but that it is entitled to conduct itself in a prima facie illegal fashion until otherwise instructed by the judicature.
According to this article, she diverted $50k from the city highway fund to pay for a makeover of the majoral office. When she was told that it was illegal for her to make such an expenditure without the approval of council, she reportedly replied "I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't."
I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for the law in positions that are in charge of it.
Basically the basis I have for saying that was that wired article which said it was them, which I believed...
Which just goes to show that it's possible to get an article published in Wired without having to engage in logical thought.
As it's anonymous, I didn't realize anyone would care if they're non-name got tarnished.
Now you are simply being disingenuous. You were implying that the people who hacked Palin's account were not nice people because they were in fact the same people who tried to hurt epilepsy sufferers. Not that I think that self-appointed moral guardians who think they have some right or public duty to hack into someones personal communications are nice people, mind you.
Right, remember this is the same group that hacked an epilepsy support page to try to induce seizures.
What basis do you have for saying that? Both groups may have called themselves 'Anonymous,' but they were also in fact anonymous. By your reasoning that single human posting here as Anonymous Coward is a very very busy little bee indeed.
This is kind of like saying that, on the balance of probabilities, George Bush was surprised by the capture of Saddam Hussein.
No it isn't, because the use of the word 'surprised' in that context was an ironic reworking (to opposite intent) of OPs expression that Bin Landen may have been surprised that the towers collapsed.
Yes, he probably was. That doesn't mean he didn't order, authorize and finance it.
Apparently I didn't make myself clear. So allow me to reformulate. I'm pursuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that Bin Laden did not plan, order, authorise, or finance the 9/11 attacks.
But bin Laden clearly knew about the plan, clearly approved it (admitting as much in the video we all saw), and it was his money that financed it.
Are you taking about the 'admission' made in the English translation to the 2001 tape, which later scrutiny revealed was not contained in the Arabic original? Here in an extremely interesting analysis of the translation (you need to be able to read German). The only direct evidence of Goldstein's involvement would seem to be derived from propagada.
If instead you are talking about the, (what would in any case be self-serving), statments contained in tapes revealed during the 2004 American presidential campaign, I find these even more problematic.
Please note, I have no particular desire to exonerate the man. I'm merely sceptical about most of what we are told in relation to these matters and study the evidence with the critical eye of both of an historian and a lawyer (which are in fact two of my qualifications). And finally whether or not Bin Laden bears any personal culpability, it does not detract from, nor add to, the monstrosity of what was done that day.
This was commonly reported immediately after 9/11. It was back when any Osama tape was immediately broadcast and analyzed to death.
Thankyou for saying that. So often when these things are "revealed" I'm just left sitting, "Didn't we know that at the time?!" (Or is everyone else's memory working fine and I'm just mad &/or psychic.
As far as Bin Laden's denial of involvement... it is not beyond possibilty that a bunch of Islamic terrorists could organise themselves to carry something that 9/11 out, even without Bin Laden's involvement. It would seem to be more self-serving for him to have claimed rather than disavowed it. His actions were (I'm not conviced he lives) usually marked by any fear of American retaliation whatsoever. I'm pursuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, Bin Laden really was surprised by the attack.
'Al Qaida' presents the administration with a convenient brand name. It's easy to talk about a single entity and make the folks in voter land understand what you're talking about, just like it was easier in the 60s and 70s to talk about "the Mafia," instead of confusing people with the reality of multiple (not all Italian) crime families, gangs, etc etc. Secondly it sounds better to say "we are fighting Al Qaida," instead of "we are fighting Muslims," or even "Muslim fundamentalists."
That being said, this isn't a case of some draconian regime of censorship imposed by a tyrranical government. It's just a bit of marketing folks. And if you seriously want to inform yourself and go beyond the 'Al Qaida' label, this is information has been out there, security failures notwithstanding.
Well, he wouldn't be my first choice as a candidate. I don't think any of them running would be. But seriously, there is more of a deal being made of that then what is neccesary.
Well he wouldn't be mind 'cause I'm not in Australia;) But yes the journalist here have the same dumb trick of asking candidates (who come briefed with all the latest econometric data) deep economic questions like "what's the price of a litre of milk?"... Oh look he doesn't know, Oooh ah! he's out-of-touch(tm) with the electorate isn't he? I always think, "I'll be buggered if I know the price of milk.
On the other hand it would be sweet to be so f*cking rich that I didn't have a clue how many houses I owned.
I actually do find some admiration on someone who isn't so concerned with his finances that he has every asset memories and willing to cite them off while asking us to elect him to one of the most powerful positions in the world.
If his answer had been: "I don't know every detail of my investment portfolio. It may include more than the N properties I'm aware of..." or something along those lines, he would have come out looking better, yes. I think a lack of concern about his finances was exactly the wrong thing to project to a population for whom it is (by necessity) the paramount concern. Better to characterise yourself as a canny investor who will do for the country what he has done for his personal finances, instead of someone without a care in the world, whose wealth has just been handed to him. And he provided the Democrats with a perfect opportunity to spin it "no wonder he doesn't see how bad the economy is" line.
That being said, I wouldn't want to have to be so totally 110% on my toes with every question you get thrown at you.
And yet somehow he fails to understand the Streisand effect... and the fact that any Joe Slob can post anything on the net with complete anonymity if they so wish.
Wait, you are arguing that if it is possible to commit a crime without being detected we should not prosecute anyone we happen to know committed the same offence?
ON this case, however, I'm very apprehensive letting them pass a harassment law...it will likely be so broad that most ANY speech will be deemed illegal.
In which case it wouldn't fly. SCOTUS is becoming increasingly intolerant of laws which impose limits on freedom of speech. Take for instance the case a few years back in which they found that child pornography qua speech was protected speech (subject to the local values test for obscenity). Instead what made it prosecutable was the actual use of children in making it. Perhaps some distinction between speech qua speech, and the malevolent social damage inflicted in this case could be made in setting up the legislative regime here.
..a young girl killed herself. While it was sad...it was also a case of a kid that was troubled to begin with.
You are not a parent! And no, as I understand it, she was not especially troubled to begin with.
I mean, breaking up with an imaginary boyfriend she's never met in meatspace and killing yourself over it, is a sign she wasn't stable to begin with.
Who says she killed herself over breaking up with an imaginary boyfriend?
This is a pretty extreme case of blaming the victim, especially give the facts of this case. As I understand it, this is what happened. The accused set up an account pretending to be a teenage boy. 'He' befriended the victim gaining her confidence and working his way into her virtual (and related RL) social network. Then 'he' started spreading malicious rumours about her through this network with the intent of turn her friends (virtual and RL) against her and did so with some success. 'He' dumped on her, (not just dumped her,) using the knowledge of a mature adult female to undermine any remaining feelings of self-worth the victim had. What the accused did in this case was bit by bit to remove from the victim her entire social underpinnings and to wreck her sense of self. Most healthy socialised teenagers would be completely shattered by this (most healthy adults would too). The possibility of this campaign resulting in the suicide of a previously healthy and happy teenage girl was completely forseeable. Most likely it was the explicit intent of the purpetrator.
From the the start the killer (for that is what she is), meticulously planned this. She carried out the plan, patiently executing it with clinical efficiency. She achieved the desired result. If there are no laws more applicable to dealing with this intolerable conduct than the ones which are being applied here, they need to be passed!
What kind of behavior are you considering outlawing here? Being a dick? You want to outlaw being a dick on the internet?
I can't speak for OP, but the behaviour we might want to look at is not simply being a dick, but conducting a calculated and sustained campaign of harrassment intended, with malice. to inflict serious physical &/or psychological damage on a specific individual. We might even want to extend it to a class of individuals to account for 'behaviours' such as planting epilepsy inducing graphics on epilepsy support boards and the like.
I agree with OP, that twisting an existing law for fear that this woman might get away with what she has done, when clearly she should not, is not an acceptable solution.
But metal is recyclable, plastic is not really recyclable. And about 8% of our crust is aluminum, plastic is from the oil, which is disappearing quickly. You may have noticed that aluminum is extracted from the ore, but did you know how plastic become plastic?
Aluminium (different spelling jurisdiction), is often described as 'solidified energy.' While it is perhaps the most plentiful metal in the world, the energy costs in producing it are so high as to render the cost of the ore is negligable. And consider that every once of oil turned into plastic (unless it is that evil biodegradable plastic) is an ounce of oil not burnt (I'm only half serious here, clearly the energy costs of producing plastic outweigh this). All in all, though I think OP isn't wrong in pointing out the eco-unfriendliness of Aluminium.
What it meant is that the Swedes who were sparing with their electricity were subsidising the people using loads of it.
To which the same considerations (ie. the need for real world data) apply. How serious a problem this is depends on the actual distribution of power use among Swedish households. Is it relatively uniform (in line with Swedish household income) or are there great disparities with regard to energy usage? Despite what might happen at the extremes, it is nonetheless still possible that the bulk of the the Swedish taxpayers/consumers were getting a better deal with a subsidised power supply.
Note that I am not in anyway claming that they were, however much this might be the perception of individual Swedish people. I'm merely cautioning against bringing theoretical constructs to bear on a situation which remains unquantified.
Beyond this, it might be argued that should a disparity of consumption exist on some basis other than pure self-indulgence, (eg. on a geographic basis), subsidisation of the higher users might be a socially desirable outcome. It's a feature, not a bug!
If on the other hand you are pointing out that subsidising the consumption of a commodity is a poor way to discourage consumption of that commodity (and assuming that the consumption of energy ought to be discouraged), well yes...
Maybe that was because the government was keeping prices artificially low at taxpayer expense?
Were these taxpayers the same people who were getting cheaper power? You'd have to do some number crunching before you could claim it was at the taxpayer's expense. Given economies of scale, and relatively low pay for public sectors employees (especially at management level), it is just possible that the taxpayers qua consumers of energy enjoyed a net saving.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not fear of the expected punishment?
Flip side of the coin really. In any case the orthodox theological view is that the punishment is not getting the reward (ie hell means being outside the presence of God).
Disbelieving in God's existence does not mandate that an atheist must disbelieve in an afterlife.
Of course there is no logical inconsistency in believing in an after life without believing in any gods. As a matter of fact though an overwhelmingly large majority of atheists don't believe in an afterlife. This is not a terribly substantive criticism. You might also have observed that atheists are not bound to reach this moral conclusion, but then my post was about what an atheist "can" and a christian "cannot appreciate" (which words appear in a sentence preceding the one you chose to decontextualise).
Your contention re Christian vs Atheist appreciation of the gravity of murder needs re-examination.
Where I write 'atheist' read 'an atheist who doesn't belive in an afterlife'. Where I write 'christian' read 'a christian who does believe in an afterlife.' Fixed.
[I]t is my contention that a Christian cannot appreciate the true gravity of murder in the way an atheist can.
That's very wrong if that Christian believes that there is a place/situation/state called Hell.
I doubt that should raise too much concern on the part of the religionist. It doesn't fall to us after all to second guess God's judgment, indeed in ridding the world from vile sinners we might even think of ourselves as doing God's work (which attitude would not be unprecedented). The ethical atheist lacks any similar method of eluding responsibility. So again, I think, that despite any misgivings a particular Christian may have in dispatching a sinner to Hell, their understanding of the gravity of murder cannot approach that of an atheist who has thought through the implications of prematurely ending a human consciousness.
Whereas many atheists believe once you die, that's it - nonexistence.
Arguably being outside the presence of God would be indistinguishable from nonexistence.
Therefore, if it is a choice between letting a christian live vs a nonchristian live, logic has it that the christian is expendable. Lots of christians can't accept it when I tell them stuff like if it were a choice between killing a robber/soldier or letting the robber/soldier kill your child, logic has it you should not kill the robber/soldier (unless perhaps in the case where you know he is a Christian? ;) ).
Well I admire the logical consistency of your position. ;)
A Christian is someone who follows Jesus. When Jesus came, he said christians are to love one another, turn the other cheek etc. He most certainly didn't say go around killing people. So if christians go around killing (even Christians), they're not doing a good job of following Jesus. It might even be they're not actually genuine followers.
Absolutely. But this is kind of my point. For a Christian the non-killing comes from uncritically following Jesus, or from uncritically obeying I-am's injunction "Thou shalt not kill." For an atheist such as myself conforming with Jesus' teaching comes from ethical and historical reflection and an understanding that (most of) the system of morality he (and similar teachers such as Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, etc) taught is the only proven system to lead to a just, free and humane society.
Eternity is a very long time to be "not good enough". Maybe some people are good enough to enjoy Eternity without help from God. I don't think I am.
I don't disagree that it would be nice if there were a human-loving God(dess) who could grant us eternal joy. Indeed, I hope you find your paradise.
It does touch on a point I've wondered about: religion seems to be the foundation of much of our societal moral code. Without the framework of religion, why is it "wrong" to kill someone?
Reminds me of thing Nietzsche wrote about the madman in the market place, "now that we've killed God, which way is up or down?" This is known as the question of 'grounding' and is the subject of much debate in the study of ethics.
Religion does provide one ground. It is perhaps most effective because it relies on blind obedience and discourages thinking. "What is wrong with murder ... easy ... God says don't do it." But other grounds, more suitable to thinking creatures do exist. Kant's categorical imperative, for example, "Want to live in a world where every person tries kill every other? No? Then don't kill."
Putting aside the question of grounding, it is my contention that a Christian cannot appreciate the true gravity of murder in the way an atheist can. Christians have convinced themselves in the existence of an afterlife. For them killing a human is merely removing them from this world (the less important world). An atheist on the other hand realises that killing a human being is the snuffing out of an individual and unique consciousness for all time. A consciousness which longs for existence, just as much as our own does. It is this moral consideration which stops the atheist killing. Theists instead act only in obedience to their God motivated by ultimate personal reward. You might go even further and state that whereas atheists can truly be moral creatures, theists can't.
Years of watching slashdot paid off in a truly interesting story
Yes and the editors missed the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to run it under the heading "NASA SCIENTISTS DISCOVER GOD." Damn!
Let me start by stressing that in illustrating to you the fallacy of the GreatMan view of History (which enjoyed some historiographical credibility in the wake of Napoleon, but went out of serious History with gas lights), I do not mean to argue for an idealist notion of historical motion. Instead I think of History in terms of the reciprocal relationship between complex material conditions and ideology. Nor am I trying to write human actors out of History, that would be a position even more ridiculous than the view I'm refuting. It is people who are subject to material conditions, people who create and are swayed by ideas, and people who ultimately make history
No, you're missing the point.
Yup, I did. When you wrote"[i]f Hitler had died anywhere in his early years" this could have been taken a) literally (eg. at age 3), b) in the early years after his takeover of the NSDAP, c) in his early years in power. In the context of the question, was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did, I took c) to be the most natural reading. You meant a) or b). Sorry.
While I've already conceded that Hitler is a good, if isolated, example of an individual will as the motive force of History (the GreatMan view), the problem of giving undue attention his personal psychology (and indeed his personal culpability) is that you miss the material conditions (inter alia the German economy and political system), which gave him the opportunity to prosper. It also fails to explain why governments of similar complexion (which for convenience we call 'fascist') rose to power across a swathe of Europe from Spain to Hungary at this time, and at no other.
You are not seriously suggesting that if Emily Pankhurst had died at the turn of the C20th women would still not have the vote?!
Forget for a moment the aberrations of communism and fascism and consider that great historical change which practically defines modernity, the emergence of the liberal-democratic state, indeed of the idea of the liberal-democratic state (ie. electoral representative democracy with a market based economy). Do you really want to write the Montesquies and Tom Paines out of History? Who was the leader responsible? Washington? Danton? Robespierre? The numerous liberal lawyers who headed the 1848 revolutions? No! This was an idea whose time had come, and try as the old powers might, the assassination of individual leaders, was not going to halt it. It could be stalled, as Metternich so cusccessfully did, but ultimately the idea would survive him and his ilk, and come to fruition.
The ideas for communism were out of the bag long before 1917....
The "originators" of which were dead, but do go on.
Be very careful here, you are verging on writing something sensible ;)
LOL Of course you do! Admit it, you saw the danger of what you were writing and inserted that to avoid contradicting yourself. Cute. You don't really believe that if any other Romanov had been Czar the outcome would have been different, do you?
Indeed, who is? Would the Soviet Union have been significantly different with Bukharin as leader? Who's to say? What we can say is that it was Lenin's idea, that Marx was wrong, and that rather than Communism emerging in the world's most advanced economies (Marx had favoured the USA and the UK as being able to ach
The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas.
If ideas pose no danger to them, why would they want to do that.
Ideas within this context are anti-dangers
Dangers are dangerous to particular subjects. What is dangerous to liberal democracy (eg. the control of the state by the church) might not be dangerous to a theocracy and vv. The only sense I can make of your "anti-dangers" is that they are dangers to things you happen not to agree with.
Note that for the sake of generalisation and simplification we'll assume a moral absolutism.
Which particular absolute morality are we assuming, the koranic one? Sorry, assumption declined. If you do this you end up with ridiculous constructs such as anti-dangers.
Ideas can be dangerous and the same idea can be dangerous to different people at different times. Take the idea of Nationalism was originally a liberation ideology. It propsed that rather than the marriage arrangements of various aristocrats determining which political unit an individual belonged to, we should instead look to the nation, as defined by a shared culture and/or language. This idea, together with the idea that people should be able to choose the people who governed them proved to be very dangerous to the crowned heads of Europe, just ask Louis. Later nationalism revealed itself as a chauvanistic ideology, dangerous to people who lived near borders, to ethnic minorities and, when expressed as war, to just about everyone.
You speak of dangerous people as if independent of dangerous ideas, but take the dangerous ideas out of the heads of these dangerous people and what are you left with?
Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why people and not ideas are dangerous.
Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all. Really the examples of dictatorial regimes that survive the death of their founder is so great as to make your statments ridiculous.
Goodness wasn't the GreatMan view of history abandoned sometime in the C19th? Must ususally an historical opportunity presents itself and someone (and it could have been any number of someones) fills the place. I will conceed that in the case of Hitler we are perhaps dealing with a leader sui generis since, unlike Mussolini for instance, he did not remain a simple puppet to the interests that allowed him power. Mussolini, however, is far more typical. Facially a "great leader," in reality a captive spokesperson.
NS Germany was never going to end any otherway simply due to the bellicose nature of the regime. Had it not been so warlike, the regime would have eventually ended in economic disaster. Not because it was a state-owned economy, it wasn't, but because the regime had undermined the intellectual infrastructure of the country. You cannot continue to place party hacks into all the educational, administrative and judicial positions based merely on ideological adherence without regard to ability and hope to survive long term.
There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.
If ideas and speech really are this impotent, then is freedom of speech or conscience such a big deal? Tell you what the next time someone brings up some egregious example of censorship, I won't get upset anymore, I'll just relax, take a leaf out of your book and tell myself, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter, after all ideas can't do much can they?"
I have yet to see anyone ask Cheney or Palin if they feel they are above the law. Their actions seem to indicate they do.
Palin's position on this is, ahem, 'nuanced.' She appears to believe that the excutive is not entirely above the law, but that it is entitled to conduct itself in a prima facie illegal fashion until otherwise instructed by the judicature.
According to this article, she diverted $50k from the city highway fund to pay for a makeover of the majoral office. When she was told that it was illegal for her to make such an expenditure without the approval of council, she reportedly replied "I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't."
I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for the law in positions that are in charge of it.
Masochism?
That's some great logic there.
Thank you, I try my best. ;)
Basically the basis I have for saying that was that wired article which said it was them, which I believed ...
Which just goes to show that it's possible to get an article published in Wired without having to engage in logical thought.
As it's anonymous, I didn't realize anyone would care if they're non-name got tarnished.
Now you are simply being disingenuous. You were implying that the people who hacked Palin's account were not nice people because they were in fact the same people who tried to hurt epilepsy sufferers. Not that I think that self-appointed moral guardians who think they have some right or public duty to hack into someones personal communications are nice people, mind you.
Right, remember this is the same group that hacked an epilepsy support page to try to induce seizures.
What basis do you have for saying that? Both groups may have called themselves 'Anonymous,' but they were also in fact anonymous. By your reasoning that single human posting here as Anonymous Coward is a very very busy little bee indeed.
This is kind of like saying that, on the balance of probabilities, George Bush was surprised by the capture of Saddam Hussein.
No it isn't, because the use of the word 'surprised' in that context was an ironic reworking (to opposite intent) of OPs expression that Bin Landen may have been surprised that the towers collapsed.
Yes, he probably was. That doesn't mean he didn't order, authorize and finance it.
Apparently I didn't make myself clear. So allow me to reformulate. I'm pursuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that Bin Laden did not plan, order, authorise, or finance the 9/11 attacks.
But bin Laden clearly knew about the plan, clearly approved it (admitting as much in the video we all saw), and it was his money that financed it.
Are you taking about the 'admission' made in the English translation to the 2001 tape, which later scrutiny revealed was not contained in the Arabic original? Here in an extremely interesting analysis of the translation (you need to be able to read German). The only direct evidence of Goldstein's involvement would seem to be derived from propagada.
If instead you are talking about the, (what would in any case be self-serving), statments contained in tapes revealed during the 2004 American presidential campaign, I find these even more problematic.
Please note, I have no particular desire to exonerate the man. I'm merely sceptical about most of what we are told in relation to these matters and study the evidence with the critical eye of both of an historian and a lawyer (which are in fact two of my qualifications). And finally whether or not Bin Laden bears any personal culpability, it does not detract from, nor add to, the monstrosity of what was done that day.
This was commonly reported immediately after 9/11. It was back when any Osama tape was immediately broadcast and analyzed to death.
Thankyou for saying that. So often when these things are "revealed" I'm just left sitting, "Didn't we know that at the time?!" (Or is everyone else's memory working fine and I'm just mad &/or psychic.
As far as Bin Laden's denial of involvement ... it is not beyond possibilty that a bunch of Islamic terrorists could organise themselves to carry something that 9/11 out, even without Bin Laden's involvement. It would seem to be more self-serving for him to have claimed rather than disavowed it. His actions were (I'm not conviced he lives) usually marked by any fear of American retaliation whatsoever. I'm pursuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, Bin Laden really was surprised by the attack.
'Al Qaida' presents the administration with a convenient brand name. It's easy to talk about a single entity and make the folks in voter land understand what you're talking about, just like it was easier in the 60s and 70s to talk about "the Mafia," instead of confusing people with the reality of multiple (not all Italian) crime families, gangs, etc etc. Secondly it sounds better to say "we are fighting Al Qaida," instead of "we are fighting Muslims," or even "Muslim fundamentalists."
That being said, this isn't a case of some draconian regime of censorship imposed by a tyrranical government. It's just a bit of marketing folks. And if you seriously want to inform yourself and go beyond the 'Al Qaida' label, this is information has been out there, security failures notwithstanding.
Well, he wouldn't be my first choice as a candidate. I don't think any of them running would be. But seriously, there is more of a deal being made of that then what is neccesary.
Well he wouldn't be mind 'cause I'm not in Australia ;) But yes the journalist here have the same dumb trick of asking candidates (who come briefed with all the latest econometric data) deep economic questions like "what's the price of a litre of milk?" ... Oh look he doesn't know, Oooh ah! he's out-of-touch(tm) with the electorate isn't he? I always think, "I'll be buggered if I know the price of milk.
On the other hand it would be sweet to be so f*cking rich that I didn't have a clue how many houses I owned.
I actually do find some admiration on someone who isn't so concerned with his finances that he has every asset memories and willing to cite them off while asking us to elect him to one of the most powerful positions in the world.
If his answer had been: "I don't know every detail of my investment portfolio. It may include more than the N properties I'm aware of ..." or something along those lines, he would have come out looking better, yes. I think a lack of concern about his finances was exactly the wrong thing to project to a population for whom it is (by necessity) the paramount concern. Better to characterise yourself as a canny investor who will do for the country what he has done for his personal finances, instead of someone without a care in the world, whose wealth has just been handed to him. And he provided the Democrats with a perfect opportunity to spin it "no wonder he doesn't see how bad the economy is" line.
That being said, I wouldn't want to have to be so totally 110% on my toes with every question you get thrown at you.
No offence mate, but you come across like you want to make excuses for this McCain fellow.
And yet somehow he fails to understand the Streisand effect... and the fact that any Joe Slob can post anything on the net with complete anonymity if they so wish.
Wait, you are arguing that if it is possible to commit a crime without being detected we should not prosecute anyone we happen to know committed the same offence?
But telling you this is obviously not going to work. :)
No, telling works fine. Reading (textbooks | manuals | tutorials) works fine. We can learn ... just not from our own mistakes!
ON this case, however, I'm very apprehensive letting them pass a harassment law...it will likely be so broad that most ANY speech will be deemed illegal.
In which case it wouldn't fly. SCOTUS is becoming increasingly intolerant of laws which impose limits on freedom of speech. Take for instance the case a few years back in which they found that child pornography qua speech was protected speech (subject to the local values test for obscenity). Instead what made it prosecutable was the actual use of children in making it. Perhaps some distinction between speech qua speech, and the malevolent social damage inflicted in this case could be made in setting up the legislative regime here.
You are not a parent! And no, as I understand it, she was not especially troubled to begin with.
I mean, breaking up with an imaginary boyfriend she's never met in meatspace and killing yourself over it, is a sign she wasn't stable to begin with.
Who says she killed herself over breaking up with an imaginary boyfriend?
This is a pretty extreme case of blaming the victim, especially give the facts of this case. As I understand it, this is what happened. The accused set up an account pretending to be a teenage boy. 'He' befriended the victim gaining her confidence and working his way into her virtual (and related RL) social network. Then 'he' started spreading malicious rumours about her through this network with the intent of turn her friends (virtual and RL) against her and did so with some success. 'He' dumped on her, (not just dumped her,) using the knowledge of a mature adult female to undermine any remaining feelings of self-worth the victim had. What the accused did in this case was bit by bit to remove from the victim her entire social underpinnings and to wreck her sense of self. Most healthy socialised teenagers would be completely shattered by this (most healthy adults would too). The possibility of this campaign resulting in the suicide of a previously healthy and happy teenage girl was completely forseeable. Most likely it was the explicit intent of the purpetrator.
From the the start the killer (for that is what she is), meticulously planned this. She carried out the plan, patiently executing it with clinical efficiency. She achieved the desired result. If there are no laws more applicable to dealing with this intolerable conduct than the ones which are being applied here, they need to be passed!
There's already a mechanism for dealing with this, it's called a restraining order.
A restraining order has its place, but I feel that its usefulness is somewhat diminished after the victims' death.
What kind of behavior are you considering outlawing here? Being a dick? You want to outlaw being a dick on the internet?
I can't speak for OP, but the behaviour we might want to look at is not simply being a dick, but conducting a calculated and sustained campaign of harrassment intended, with malice. to inflict serious physical &/or psychological damage on a specific individual. We might even want to extend it to a class of individuals to account for 'behaviours' such as planting epilepsy inducing graphics on epilepsy support boards and the like.
I agree with OP, that twisting an existing law for fear that this woman might get away with what she has done, when clearly she should not, is not an acceptable solution.
But metal is recyclable, plastic is not really recyclable. And about 8% of our crust is aluminum, plastic is from the oil, which is disappearing quickly. You may have noticed that aluminum is extracted from the ore, but did you know how plastic become plastic?
Aluminium (different spelling jurisdiction), is often described as 'solidified energy.' While it is perhaps the most plentiful metal in the world, the energy costs in producing it are so high as to render the cost of the ore is negligable. And consider that every once of oil turned into plastic (unless it is that evil biodegradable plastic) is an ounce of oil not burnt (I'm only half serious here, clearly the energy costs of producing plastic outweigh this). All in all, though I think OP isn't wrong in pointing out the eco-unfriendliness of Aluminium.
Last time I checked, it takes significant amounts of CO2 to mine uranium ore and transport it.
But that's only a bootstrap problem, surely?
What it meant is that the Swedes who were sparing with their electricity were subsidising the people using loads of it.
To which the same considerations (ie. the need for real world data) apply. How serious a problem this is depends on the actual distribution of power use among Swedish households. Is it relatively uniform (in line with Swedish household income) or are there great disparities with regard to energy usage? Despite what might happen at the extremes, it is nonetheless still possible that the bulk of the the Swedish taxpayers/consumers were getting a better deal with a subsidised power supply.
Note that I am not in anyway claming that they were, however much this might be the perception of individual Swedish people. I'm merely cautioning against bringing theoretical constructs to bear on a situation which remains unquantified.
Beyond this, it might be argued that should a disparity of consumption exist on some basis other than pure self-indulgence, (eg. on a geographic basis), subsidisation of the higher users might be a socially desirable outcome. It's a feature, not a bug!
If on the other hand you are pointing out that subsidising the consumption of a commodity is a poor way to discourage consumption of that commodity (and assuming that the consumption of energy ought to be discouraged), well yes ...
Maybe that was because the government was keeping prices artificially low at taxpayer expense?
Were these taxpayers the same people who were getting cheaper power? You'd have to do some number crunching before you could claim it was at the taxpayer's expense. Given economies of scale, and relatively low pay for public sectors employees (especially at management level), it is just possible that the taxpayers qua consumers of energy enjoyed a net saving.